Too confusing? Let me break it down for you.For instance, here in Hillsborough County, 41.7 percent of voters are registered Democrats, while 35.1 percent are Republican. Election results taken from the Department of State's Web page (http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/20041102_DET_PRE.html), however, indicate that 244,606 voted for George W. Bush, while only 213,413 voted for John Kerry.Seems a little fishy, but neither result is implausible. But compare Hillsborough's results with that of other counties, and what you get is a completely different story.In Calhoun County, for instance, 82.4% are registered Dems, while only 11.9% are Republicans. In this county, however, 3,780 people voted for the President, while only 2,116 voted for Kerry.In Baker County where registered Democrats make up nearly 70% of the voting public, compared to 24.3% Republican, 7,738 voted for Bush; only 2,180 for Kerry.Did Bush really swing that many Democrats?Statistics compiled by CNN Wednesday show that he did not. In fact, for the most part, registered voters voted right along party lines:

What else could account for such an unbelievable margin?The common denominator to almost all of these disparaties is the voting machine, provided by Diebold Election Systems, a company responsible for tallying 80% of the national vote. Still not making sense? Consider this quip from Diebold's CEO last year:

In the last three years, (Diebold) officers and board members have donated more than $600,000 to President Bush and other Republicans. In a recent invitation to a big fund-raiser at his home in Columbus, Ohio, Walden W. O'Dell, Diebold's chief executive, told invitees that he was a "longtime supporter" of Mr. Bush and was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year. (New York Times, Sept 14, 2003, Pg. 28)"

Diebold has long been the target of criticism, not only for its political connections, but for its security. It depends mainly on Microsoft software. This article from Wikipedia sums up the many criticisms:

One of the biggest criticisms, of course, is there is no paper ballot, and therefore no accountability. But of course, this is just one, big, elaborate conspiracy theory.

The only thing we have going for us here is:A) The CEO of the voting machine company promising to deliver a swing's state's electoral votes.B) A follow-through on the aforementioned promise, which, in turn, gave Bush the election.C) Numbers that defy logic in another swing state.D) And a president who's tricked us before.

I have a sneaking suspicion that things here are not as they seem...-------------------------------------------For more depressing, unnerving, how-the-fuck-did-we-let-this-happen? info, check out some of the links below:

This is probably the most comprehensive page I found. It includes a Washington Post report that make the above "conspiracy theory" seem all too likely:

Yeah, really. I live in Massachusetts, which is much the same. Anecdotally, I talked to plenty of registered Dem. union guys who were stumping for local candidates, but planned to vote for Bush.

Also, perhaps groups doing new voter registration signed people up as Democrats. This doesn't mean they're going to vote that way.

"You know what I'm happiest for? I'm happiest for Bill Buckner, Calvin Schiraldi, Bob Stanley, Johnny Pesky, Ted Williams, all of the Red Sox that played before us will now be remembered for the great players and great people they were instead of all the other crap." Curt Schilling

I agree with Grimis and Palpatine W to a point, they could have changed their minds. However, it may have something to do with the early exit poll numbers being off. That more than anything seemed weird.I don't trust the E-Voting machines, so it wouldn't shock me if some of what you are talking would connect. I just think we should just got to paper votes, you scracth the box with a red highlight for the person you voted for and sign your name at the bottom or something.

Originally posted by GrimisWhy is the discrepancy a problem? Maryland is 2-1 Democrat; we have a Republican governor...

It tends to involve the lack of a quality candidate(in both of these cases Democrats) and a crossover vote to the GOP.

I think her losing had to do with the fact she wanted to ban smoking in the state (Or was it to raise the cig tax another $5 or something like that?). All the Dems said fuck no, and even I voted GOP on behalf of my smoker friends.

While it is mathematically possible for the results of voter registration and actual votes to differ, is it probable? If so, is it probable to differ from the voter exit polls only in the counties where the Diebold machines were being used?

Electronic voting with no paper trails to audit the results only makes the curious results that much more inexplicable.

Just because you don't like Bush doesn't mean he stole the election. For god's sake's man, grow up.

The Left, the base of the Democratic Party, hail the virtues of tolerance and consider themselves to be the tolerant citizens of America. In their touting of tolerance they express their obvious disdain for those whose views run contrary to that of enlightened Liberalism.

Dare to make a statement of conviction of any kind, and one of these Leftists will set down his cheese and wine, pause his lecture on the virtues of plurality and the absurdity of the belief in absolute Truth, and tell you your convictions -- everything you believe and hold dear -- are absolutely wrong. Where does he get his understanding that what you claim is "right" is actually not? Against what standard is this wrongness measured? He can't say. All he knows is that you're a bigot, you're intolerant, you're not worthy of being an American. In fact, you're not smart enough to understand what it means to be an American.

And not only are you dumb, you're dangerous. Fanatics like you don't belong in a "tolerant" culture like ours. You and your beliefs and the people who share them should not be allowed in our civilized society . . . or, at the very least, you should be denied the right to vote. Because when you vote, when you're politically active, you screw everything up. -Chris Field, Human Events, 11/5/04

Zeruel: I think her losing had to do with the fact she wanted to ban smoking in the state (Or was it to raise the cig tax another $5 or something like that?). All the Dems said fuck no, and even I voted GOP on behalf of my smoker friends.

Originally posted by Blanket JacksonAnd the new bipartisanship begins...etc and so forth

Nobody is saying that the eleciton results are 100% accurate. For god's sake, I'd abandon the electronic machines tomorrow if we could. But basically a hardcore group of leftists are trying to say that Bush stole the election, which at this point is up there with the Black Helicopters, FEMA creating a dictatorship and the one-world religion in ridiculous conspiracy theories.

At least the clowns urging for secession(as if that worked last time) haven't emerged yet.

The Left, the base of the Democratic Party, hail the virtues of tolerance and consider themselves to be the tolerant citizens of America. In their touting of tolerance they express their obvious disdain for those whose views run contrary to that of enlightened Liberalism.

Dare to make a statement of conviction of any kind, and one of these Leftists will set down his cheese and wine, pause his lecture on the virtues of plurality and the absurdity of the belief in absolute Truth, and tell you your convictions -- everything you believe and hold dear -- are absolutely wrong. Where does he get his understanding that what you claim is "right" is actually not? Against what standard is this wrongness measured? He can't say. All he knows is that you're a bigot, you're intolerant, you're not worthy of being an American. In fact, you're not smart enough to understand what it means to be an American.

And not only are you dumb, you're dangerous. Fanatics like you don't belong in a "tolerant" culture like ours. You and your beliefs and the people who share them should not be allowed in our civilized society . . . or, at the very least, you should be denied the right to vote. Because when you vote, when you're politically active, you screw everything up. -Chris Field, Human Events, 11/5/04

Originally posted by TheBucsFanStill not making sense? Consider this quip from Diebold's CEO last year:

In the last three years, (Diebold) officers and board members have donated more than $600,000 to President Bush and other Republicans. In a recent invitation to a big fund-raiser at his home in Columbus, Ohio, Walden W. O'Dell, Diebold's chief executive, told invitees that he was a "longtime supporter" of Mr. Bush and was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year. (New York Times, Sept 14, 2003, Pg. 28)"

So what exactly would the preferred outcome be for the Democrats here? That Bush beat them fair and square, or that even though they had all their laywers out looking for fraud plus statements like this one to warn them in advance, they were still too stupid and incompetent to stop that dumb hayseed Bush from stealing it?

Just because you don't like Bush doesn't mean he stole the election. For god's sake's man, grow up.

Of course my opinion can't prove he stole the election, just like you can't prove he didn't. Just look at the numbers by county, where Diebold was used and where other forms of counting votes were used.

Even the staunchest Bush supporters have to admit that the apparent voter-crossing-of-party-lines do not match the other counties in the state, and they all favor Bush.

Why only the Diebold counties?

For agnostic's sake, grow up! The Diebold tabulation occurs on windows based desktop pcs at the county level, and has been shown to be vulnerable to manipulation. But with all of the inspection going on at the polls themselves, the crime could have been going on at the code level - for speculation let's say switch every 20th Kerry vote for Bush.

Based at least in part on these conspiracy theories, three Democratic congressmen have written a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

We are requesting an investigation into all the allegations, of irregularities with respect to the electronic and other voting machines so that people can have confidence in the result of this election, and so that any weaknesses are changed before the next election, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

The congressmen's letter mentions the Web site ustogether.org, which questions why so many counties in Florida that have more registered Democrats than Republicans ended up voting for Bush. The Web site implies someone fixed the results.

In regard to Lafayette County, one of the counties in question, it is true that there are far more registered Democrats in that county than Republicans (3,570 to 570, respectively), and that the county elected Bush in this year's election, but the county elected Bush in the last election, too.

Four years before that, the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, won in Lafayette County as well, as did the first President Bush four years before that.

Rep. Kendrick Meek, the co-chair of the Kerry campaign in Florida, says he knows why Bush was re-elected, and it has nothing to do with fraud.

"We did a good job, but the other side did a better job," he said.

*I'm* thinking it's because Bush handed out ice and gave moral support after hurricanes wiped out this state (while Kerry couldn't be found with a search warrant)...but it looks like a trend, not a conspiracy. Or maybe because the Good Ol' Boys down here are Democrats by and large, and you have to be registered Democrat to do the primary thing / keep them in office - but obviously have different feelings on a National Scale

Originally posted by Blanket JacksonAnd the new bipartisanship begins...etc and so forth

Nobody is saying that the eleciton results are 100% accurate. For god's sake, I'd abandon the electronic machines tomorrow if we could. But basically a hardcore group of leftists are trying to say that Bush stole the election, which at this point is up there with the Black Helicopters, FEMA creating a dictatorship and the one-world religion in ridiculous conspiracy theories.

At least the clowns urging for secession(as if that worked last time) haven't emerged yet.

The secession talk hasn't stared yet? I'm pretty sure I've seen that word in the Op-Ed pages of the Baltimore Sun in the last week, a paper which BTW has really pissed me off lately because of its incessant Bush bashing. But who cares what pisses me off, right?

Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN*I'm* thinking it's because Bush handed out ice and gave moral support after hurricanes wiped out this state (while Kerry couldn't be found with a search warrant)...

Off-topic a bit, doesn't the president always show up a disaster areas to provide "moral support", even if that moral support is flying over the disaster area in a helicopter and making frowny faces? If Kerry had shown up down there to provide "moral support", wouldn't people be screaming that he was using the situation for political gain, and that he was pandering to the Florida voters?

"It's the four pillars of the male heterosexual psyche. We like naked women, stockings, lesbians, and Sean Connery best as James Bond because that is what being a [man] is." -Jack Davenport, Coupling

Battlezone: Off-topic a bit, doesn't the president always show up a disaster areas to provide "moral support", even if that moral support is flying over the disaster area in a helicopter and making frowny faces? If Kerry had shown up down there to provide "moral support", wouldn't people be screaming that he was using the situation for political gain, and that he was pandering to the Florida voters?

The media might have been screaming that, but the media ain't Joe / Jolene Voter - for those six weeks, a helping hand is a helping hand...and it doesn't hurt if the helped remember who was around when it comes time to vote. That is politics...Kerry had time to bore peole with his speeches during that time period, he could have at least grabbed a chainsaw...just saying. Bush was out helping right up until a few hours before he got creamed in the first debate

I agree party registration doesn't mean the much. The number I would be interested in (that they don't have) is the discrepancy on the local level between the vote Bush got in 2000 and the vote he got in 2004 in those counties that switched between the two elections from traditional voting to Diebolt e-voting. If that showed the same mathmatical discrepancy I would definitely bet there were some shenanigans.

Regardless, not have a paper record of voting is idiotic. Like I said before, even if it's 100 % legit it's impossible to prove to your average citizen (if not in general) that the results are accurate and not tampered with. As such, these questions will always be there, and every election is going to be conducted under a cloud of suspicion.

I suspect though, that the fact Diebolt contributed so much money (if not actual votes also) to the Bushies means that their e-voting system isn't going anywhere soon.

Originally posted by too-old-now--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bush stole another election.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because you don't like Bush doesn't mean he stole the election. For god's sake's man, grow up.

As soon as quit talking about how Joe Kennedy stole Illinois in 1960, we'll let this one go.

(edited by MoeGates on 10.11.04 2220)Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe. - Euripides